James Keller, Vancouver, BC (Canadian Press) – The federal government spent more than half a million dollars defending the RCMP and the actions of the four officers who stunned Robert Dziekanski with a Taser at Vancouver’s airport.
The force and each of the four officers had lawyers at the public inquiry into Dziekanski’s death, which began in January and finished with closing submissions last week.
The Polish immigrant’s fatal confrontation with police on Oct. 14, 2007, has been a source of intense criticism for the RCMP and the four officers and for police use of Tasers, fuelled in large part by an infamous amateur video of the incident.
The Justice Department had billed the RCMP more than $373,000 in legal fees to represent the force at the inquiry as of July 31, according to documents obtained under federal access to information laws.
Lawyers for the officers had together cost the RCMP about $200,000 by the end of August, according to the documents.
Those figures were tallied during a three-month summer break, which was ordered in June to investigate an internal RCMP email that raised questions about the officers’ testimony. Since then, there have been several days of hearings in September and final submissions this month.
And lawyers for three of the officers are heading to the B.C. Court of Appeal in December to challenge the inquiry’s authority to make findings of misconduct against them.
The RCMP and the four Mounties were named in a lawsuit filed by Dziekanski’s mother earlier this month, although it’s not clear who will pay the officers’ legal fees in that case.
The officers’ lawyers were hired just days before the inquiry was set to begin in January, and the inquiry has taken far longer than anticipated. Initially, the hearings were expected to be finished by the spring.
Ravi Hira, who represents Const. Kwesi Millington, the Mountie who fired the Taser, said it wasn’t his place to comment on the RCMP’s decision to pay the officers’ legal fees.
“In terms of cost, you have seen the length of the inquiry, you know the amount of time that we’re talking about here,” said Hira.
The RCMP couldn’t be reached for comment.
The force has always stood firmly behind the actions of the officers, and that position has been reflected at the inquiry.
In its written final submissions, handed over to the inquiry two weeks ago, the federal government maintains the officers used an “acceptable” level of force that was consistent with RCMP policies and training.
Walter Kosteckyj, who represents Dziekanski’s mother at the inquiry and in her recently filed lawsuit, said regardless of his criticisms of the officers, it’s important to ensure they’ve been adequately represented at the hearings.
“I would be a hypocrite to say they’re not entitled to be properly defended,” Kosteckyj said in a recent interview.
“And no one can say they didn’t get the best legal help necessary, no one can come back and say these guys were railroaded or weren’t treated fairly. That’s important to the process.”
The B.C. government ordered a two-phase public inquiry a month after Dziekanski died.
Commissioner Thomas Braidwood held the first part last year, broadly examining Taser use by law enforcement agencies in British Columbia. He released a report from that phase during the summer, concluding Tasers can kill but are a necessary tool for police.
The second phase, examining Dziekanski’s death in detail, has now wrapped up and Braidwood’s final report is expected to be made public next year.
By August, the provincial government had spent $3.99 million since the first phase began, said Leo Perra, executive director for the commission. That total could increase by another million by the time the commission’s work is finished, he said.
Perra said most of that cost goes to salaries, including Braidwood – who is paid about $1,700 a day – the inquiry’s own lawyers and support staff. That money also pays for facility costs.
“Commissions of inquiry aren’t particularly provided with a budget, because nobody knows where they’re going and exactly what’s going to happen,” said Perra.
Kosteckyj said it’s been money well spent.
“Every once in a while we have to shine a light on the things that are bothering us and the things that don’t seem right, and here, we put this under a microscope,” he said.
“People have to know that in certain circumstances, when you’re involved in things, there is going to be full scrutiny and this makes everybody better.”
The civil suit was launched by the individual involved. Read the news. The government does not sue people for defamation or the like.
The government pays the costs of their employees in the inquiry and would pay for any suit decided against it, or its organs, in this case the RCMP. In case you were not aware, its tax dollars that are used.
So if the federal government paid for the legal cost why is there a civil suite against CBC?
And I wonder how much it will be to settle this case with Robert’s mother in the end and who will pay for her legal cost?
What am I missing here?
Not always; but constantly trying to serve the public, holding individuals accountable, and being a good police officer has nothing to do with sentiment
. Everyone can’t do everything. But everyone can do something. If everyone does something, then everything gets done.
I respect your knowledge in these matters.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
The Executive level, starting with the Chief Superintendent rank do receive a bonus if finances are kept within budget.. No all positions qualify for the bonus. No difference but less than any major corporation.
There are approximately 90 persons up to and including the Commissioner that are in that category. Even if they all got the maximum bonus, it would still be just over a million dollars total. The RCMP budget alone has increased $800,000,000 in the past 5 years. That is .00125% only on the increase.
The RCMP has used up its yearly government set budgets and more in the past number of years, and is forced to return to Treasury Board several times for additional funding to complete directed programs and directives from the government.. They have also had to cut services to make ends even come close.
You have to do the math Calvin. Sentiment is nice but the facts are what they are. Having been a part of the RCMP for 28 years you should remember this stuff.
DT,
Not being part of RCMP management, I cannot comment accurately on the following process:
Did commanding officers of the Divisions receive or still receive a performance bonus for returning money from their budgets back to the government? If the answer is yes; there would be two sources of money to help fill the black hole that you speak of. The amount that the CO received and the amount turned into the government. Am I wrong here?
Thanks,
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
Nice sentiment Calvin but the resources you quoted represents less than the 11 to 17 % vacancy rate the Force runs under due to: sick leave, at the behest of the contract partners, and the inability to fulfill manpower commitments. A mere pittance if you cost out the end price of a major crime investigation that easily eats up hundreds of thousands of dollars and the cold cases that lack even the smallest of budgets to revisit and investigate by “pulling out all the stops.” Multiply that by all the missing women, unsolved homicides, multi million dollar frauds, ad naseum. Policing is a black hole of money just like health care. You will never be able to fully investigate all major/minor crime even with a tenfold increase of budgeting. There is simply not enough money to go around, period.
A 30 year study of the cost of policing done for the Province of BC quotes investigative time increases of up to 700+% for some categories of crime. So how much more tax dollars are you willing to part with to ensure these investigations are undertaken? 20, 50, 100, or maybe 150 percent more? Will that be enough?
Air India would have “bankrupted” the RCMP in BC had the Federal government not augment their budget to cover costs. A process still in place.
The Department of Justice (sic) that handles the federal business of the RCMP and other Federal enforcement departments is undermanned, outgunned, and underfunded to even tackle what the various departments are sending their way now. Plea bargains, refusing to prosecute, and shortcuts are the norm every day.
Besides, employees on sick leave, lawsuit costs, pensions and the lot are the cost of doing business my friend, not unlike any major corporation or company, and are built into budget calculations.
That’s the math Calvin, that’s the reality.
Words of wisdom:
Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.
Thanks: Calvin Lawrence
I guesstimate the real material cost of Dziekanski will be in the $5 million range, 90% wasted to “make things appear what they are not.”
surely you cannot posit that this is something unknown. How many investigations in your career did you forgo due to a lack of suitable resources?
Deepthroat
——————————————————————
Knowing and doing does not make it right and should not make it acceptable. Wealth times knowledge equals power. Suitable resources are there. The money to pay those suitable resources are diverted to salaries of members on sick leave due to stress in the following ways:
Members on sick leave.
Members receiving VAC pensions
defending civil court cases / settlements
giving promotions as part of settlements
Please do the math. How much more money would be spent on investigations etc.
IF there is money paid out as a settlement or legal decision regarding the incident in Vancouver; could that money have be added to suitable resources.
There should always be suitable resources to defend the RCMP when they are right or made an honest mistake; however when the RCMP is clearly wrong then simply tell the truth no matter who it helps or who it hurts. That would save money for investigations and resources.
Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
‘Group think’ is another example of neurotic institutional behavior. For some of us, the most effective limit to free speech is our own inability to think objectively. Would you agree DT?
After almost three decades in the RCMP and stints with another PD and now a business person I am surprised at your statement about money. From the investigation of crime, the prosecution of crime and the results of both, surely you cannot posit that this is something unknown. How many investigations in your career did you forgo due to a lack of suitable resources?
The Braidwood inquiry superseded the Coroners Inquest due to political pressure, so now when the inquest is held it will be long and drawn out and cost more money, but will no doubt be curtailed somewhat due to money.
Investigations have been and always will be constrained by money. Prosecutions are cast aside due to money. Incarceration is averted because of money. It has been this way for a long long time. the wealthy, or the indigent getting “justice” is all about the bills. Civil courts in the province of BC start at 42,000 dollars in costs for litigation. Highest in the country.
New courtrooms for the Picton trial, 30+ million for the politically charged Air India Investigation which is still ongoing and will be for many years due to political pressure, not justice, do not suffer from a lack of money per se, however something else is suffering because of their expenditures. Someplace is cut back due to them.
Legal aid, once the bane of the large firms pro bono, is now an industry in itself. Money Calvin, money.
As I read the article and comments I realize that in our society it’s all about the money. The rest is just conversation. The public does not realize that there is justice and justice according to law. One has nothing to do with the other.
To speak or write the truth in our society citizens must be protected by law. (Whistle Blowing Legislation.)
To think that a timely,honest, open as possible investigation should and would be held; followed by exposing the truth no matter who it helps or who it hurts is a speech from heaven. But we are living on earth.
There was once a fighter named Mohammed Ali who went around saying that he was the greatest. Then a fighter called Joe Fraser came along and prove it! The RCMP keeps saying that they are the greatest. The citizens of Canada keep saying prove it.
Constantly doing things the same and expecting different results is called neurotic behaviour.
Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting
Uhhh, thats what the legal wrangling ends in, either proven or admitted.
Or would you rather see your tax dollars shelled out without any sort of proof, on a sliding scale from Arar on down to I dont like your attitude for 100 bucks?
“. . . Legally the RCMP, and the government of the day have to defend itself and its employees from any and all legal actions.”
One other possibility: Admit error, take corrective action.
Prepare to dispense more shekels as the RCMP hand over the investigations you so castigate to a new civilian agency with offices around the country and in the backwaters. I can hardly wait for the vitriol to be directed subsequent to the first investigation undertaken by the extra tax dollars you are going to be drained of.
Oh wait, there will still be pubic inquiries, coroners inquests, tribunals, and the lot anyway. Good for the economy though. More jobs, pens paper, computers etc.. Maybe if you are in the supply business you can make a buck or two of your federal tax assessment back by filling orders for the new oversight body.
“Yes, you can be sure the cost to the public is in the millions and that would not have been necessary if the RCMP was commanded by ethical people”. Whether or not they are commanded by ethical people does not change any undesirable actions on the part of the employees. Legally the RCMP, and the government of the day have to defend itself and its employees from any and all legal actions. This should not be a surprise to you.
Yes, you can be sure the cost to the public is in the millions and that would not have been necessary if the RCMP was commanded by ethical people. I wonder how much the embarrassingly weak testimony of Mr. F., the forensic “video expert” cost us.
Beancounters can assess financial cost but not the intangible costs. But then how much does the force value respect and goodwill? Well established group-think rules the day so the brass could stand in under an umbrella in a rainstorm and claim the world was dry.
I submit that the taxpayer has sent a lot more than half a million dollars because of what the four RCMP officers did to Mr. Dziekanski. As well as the legal fees of the lawyers, the taxpayer has paid the salaries of the judges/commissioners, the clerks and administrative assistants, the salaries of all the RCMP officers and their superiors/colleagues that were called as witnesses. This includes paying their salaries when they attended court, prepared for court and traveled to and from court. The taxpayer has paid for the taxis that these people traveled in, the facilities (heat, light, cleaning, rent, etc) in which they prepared their testimony, transcribed the proceedings or filed the documents – hearing rooms, offices, boardrooms, even washrooms. The taxpayer has paid for all the sundry supplies used during the commission hearings and in preparation for attendance (the computers and laptops, the printers and photocopiers, the paper and pens, the desks and chairs) and of course the salaries of the all the people that maintain all those facilities and equipment.
It’s nice that “the force has always stood firmly behind the actions of the officers“…”And no one can say they didn’t get the best legal help necessary, no one can come back and say these guys were railroaded or weren’t treated fairly. That’s important to the process.” What about Mrs. Dziekanski – who is treating her fairly, who is paying her bills – if her lawsuit is successful she’ll get about half of the award, her lawyers will get the rest. Her son has been dead for two years. Regardless of the amount of her suit, she should be awarded at least what the Crown has spent on protecting the RCMP officers plus the cost of the Commission. Such a settlement may make enough of an impression to persuade the RCMP that they cannot tolerate abusive officers and that when abuse happened to deal with it quickly, openly and justly.